ETIS IV DRFP QA (2nd Batch) Final.pdf

Environmental Test and Integration Services

(ETIS) IV

Draft Request for Proposal

Questions and Answers (Q&A)

80GSFC24R0012

January 21, 2025

Note: The questions/comments that were produced in this document were typed as they were submitted.

1. Question: Instructions state that the cost exhibits (10A and 10B) fulfill the Total

Compensation Plan (TCP) requirement under FAR provision 52.222-46 for Non-

Significant service Subcontractors. However, section B.9 TCP states that the Offeror shall provide a TCP for all personnel proposed, in accordance with NFS provision

1852.231-71 and FAR provision 52.222-46. Does the submission of Offeror and subcontractor cost exhibits 10A and 10B fulfill the requirement under NFS provision

1852.231-71? P. 118

Response: No, Cost Exhibits 10A and 10B do not fulfill the requirements of 1852.231-71.

The total compensation plan required by 1852.231-71 addresses more information than the data included in Cost Exhibits 10A and 10B.

2. Question: Last sentence of section L.30 (b) (12) at top of pg 135 states that phase-in will commence on January 31, 2025 while the DRFP cover letter states that it will commence on August 1, 2025. Is January 31 or August 1 the correct date?

Response: The final RFP shall be updated to reflect the most current anticipated award date and Phase-in date. At this time, it is anticipated that the contract award date is on or about November 24, 2025, with a phase-in will commence date of November 25, 2025.

3. Question: In response to request for comments on the clarity of the scenario:

In A.1 Scenario assumptions, there appear to be instructions to offerers embedded within the assumption statements #1, 2, and 4. Please confirm that this is the Government's intent.

Response: Confirmed that scenario assumptions are instructions to help the offeror formulate a response.

4. Question: Will the government consider reducing the Significant Sub value from the dRFP of $25M to a historical average for a service contract of this size to a range of

$10M to $14M (ETIS III was $14M)?

Response: The RFP ceiling has been updated to $174M and the definition of significant subcontractor for past performance is updated to include any subcontractor that is proposed to perform at least $5M annually for the ETIS IV contract. This will be reflected in the Final RFP.

5. Question: Due to the large, complex nature of this work and with various TOs anticipated, would NASA consider increasing the days for "Notification of Changes' in section (b) from 10 to 30 days to be in accordance with FAR 52.243-2 - Changes, Cost

Reimbursement? This would afford contractors the opportunity to proaccurately and thoroughly gather facts from the performing teams to assess whether or not there was a change on the contract under the FAR 52.243-2 definition.

Response: The Government agrees to an increase in days and shall update the final RFP to reflect the days for "Notification of Changes" in section (b) from 10 to 14 days.

6. Question: Can the Government please detail which foreign countries travel is anticipated for? Understanding this is a plug number, offerors still need to be prepared to support work in OCONUS locations, so a list of tentative locations for potential task orders would be greatly appreciated.

Response: Foreign travel is unknown at this time; however, the current ETIS III contract has travel to Italy for MOMA support.

7. Question: To obtain the required Export/ITAR licenses and documentation and ensure regulatory compliance, can the Government please provide a list of what is considered to be Export/ITAR related in the final RFP?

Response: The ETIS IV contract will not require any Export/ITAR licenses and documentation. Any require Export/ITAR licenses and documentations the Government will provide to the successful Offeror as appropriate.

8. Question: Is there any relationship between the technical scenario description of

ETIS mission workload drop off as described in assumption #2 and the GPM drop off from year 1 to 2 and then further significant reductions in years 3-5?

Should offerors assume that a GPM level workforce is a guideline for what the

Government is assuming?

Response: The scenario is independent from the GPM, and the scenario details hypothetical requirements that could occur during the course of the contract. Overall, Offerors should assume a GPM level workforce as a guideline.

9. Question: Task A requests a discussion of the top five management and technical

"issues" in the scenario. In Project Management, the term "issue" means "a problem that has been encountered in executing project activities", which could restrict the discussion to actual past events, only known to the incumbent. In ETIS III, the DRFP contained

“issues” but after questions, the FRFP replaced the word "issue" with "challenge".

Currently, Task B uses the term "challenges" for Cost Control, thus avoiding the conflict.

We request that the same remedy be applied here, and that the Government replace the word “issues” with “challenges”.

Response: The Government will update the scenario to revise the wording from "issues" to "challenges" for consistency. The final RFP will reflect his change.

10. Question: Exhibit 3 has a check box for Significant subcontractors at the top. However, the instructions for Exhibit 3 state that it should be completed by the Prime Offeror. Please confirm this exhibit 3 is only to be completed by the Prime Offer.

Response: Confirmed, Exhibit 3 is only completed by the Prime Offeror. Exhibit 3 will be amended for clarity in the Final RFP.

11. Question: Instructions state that all Offerors except small businesses are required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Commitment to Small Business

Program. However, Exhibits 12 has a check box for significant subcontractors. Are significant subcontractors required to complete Exhibit 12?

Response: No, Significant Subcontractors are not required to complete Exhibit 12.

Exhibit 12 will be amended for clarity in the Final RFP.

12. Question: Please clarify that the required Compliance Matrix defined on page

113 is excluded from page limitations.

Response: The compliance matrix is excluded from the page limitations. The Final RFP will be updated to reflect this change.

13. Question: The phase “This should include proven, efficiencies, or innovative methodologies including the management area” is unclear. Either there is a missing word after “proven,” or there is an extra comma after “proven.” Will the Government please clarify this phrase?

Response: There is an extra comma after "proven, thus the Final RFP will be revised to read: "This should include proven efficiencies, or innovative methodologies including the management area".

14. Question: Will the Government please clarify if it will allow Offerors to submit an

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for the overall Scenario? If so, is submitting this artifact in Microsoft Project (.mpp) format as a separate attachment to the Mission

Suitability volume acceptable to the Government? If so, please clearly document that this attachment would be excluded from the page limitations for the Mission

Suitability volume, and that such an IMS attachment would be evaluated.

Response: It is at the Offerors discretion to submit an Integrated Master Schedule

(IMS) for the overall scenario based upon their individual approach to meeting the scenario requirements. Whichever format is used shall be included in the

Mission Suitability volume and will be a part of the Mission Suitability volume page limitations.

15. Question: Will the Government please confirm that none of the instruments from

Projects X, Y, and Z contain cryogenic design features?

Response: The Scenario provides each offeror the opportunity to propose features as they see fit based on the offeror's unique approach. As such the Flight project cryogenic design features can neither be confirmed nor excluded. The offeror shall determine what features are necessary to complete the scenario based on its understanding and approach to meeting the scenario. Please Refer to Tasks A & B to help develop rationale.

16. Question: Will the Government please provide the weight and volume (maximum height, width, and depth) of the GEDI and Near-Infrared Camera instruments referenced in the Scenario description so that all Offerors are using consistent inputs in planning the details of their I&T campaigns?

Response: The GEDI static volume is 2m x 1m x 1.5m, and mass=519kg. The information on these instruments have been placed on the ETIS IV E-Library entitled, Optical system design and integration of the Global Ecosystem

Dynamics Investigation Lidar, and are public via the following link:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190030790/downloads/20190030790.pdf

17. Question: Attachment L provides a detailed list of Government-furnished property

(GFP), but several items, such as computers and laptops, appear to be outdated models.

Are there plans to update or replace this equipment during the contract term, or will contractors be expected to maintain and use this existing hardware throughout the performance period?

Response: The revised Attachment L - GFP and Attachment I - IAGP will be released with the Final RFP.

18. Question: Attachment M lists numerous NIST and NASA standards. Some of the NIST standards listed are older (e.g., SP 800-12 Rev. 1 from 2017), while more recent versions exist for certain documents. Will contractors be expected to comply with the most up-to-date versions of these standards, or will the listed versions be the ones enforced throughout the contract?

Response: The contractor shall comply with the most up-to-date standards. The Final RFP will update Attachment M with most up-to-date standards as deemed appropriate.

19. Question: The Scenario states that after projects X and Y finish their I&T campaigns, the workload will decrease for approximately 12 months. What specific core competencies are crucial during the reduced workload period? What minimal workload remains during this 12-month period? Will there be smaller, non-mission-critical projects running in parallel? During the reduced workload period following Projects X and Y, will the

GSFC-STD-7000B guidelines on environmental stress screening and lower-level assembly testing be sufficient to meet the core competencies required?

Response: The scenario provides each offeror the opportunity to propose resolutions/impacts to workload decreases as they see fit based on the offeror's unique approach. As such, the minimal workload that remains can neither be identified nor excluded for the purposes of this exercise. The offeror shall determine what approach to workload decreases are necessary to complete the scenario based on its understanding to meeting the scenario requirements. The core competencies for the

Environmental Test Engineering and Integration branch overall are environmental testing, mechanical integration, and contamination control. Please refer to Tasks A & B to help develop rationale.

20. Question: Are the only DRDs required during performance as the OCI Plan and DEIA Plan?

If others are required, will the Government please include them in the final list?

Response: At this time, these are the only DRDs required. If this changes the Final RFP will be updated accordingly.

21. Question: The Government indicates that for Subfactor A: Technical Approach, Paragraph 3, NASA is highly interested in "alternate operational models within this integration and testing progam scenario. This is a differentiated approach and the

Government requests industry feedback for this approach."

We suggest that the Government add the following language to Sections L Subfactor A -

Technical Approach A.1 Scenario: “Contractors shall provide details of their alternative operational models within this testing and integration program scenario.”

We suggest that the Government add the following language to Section M.4 - Technical

Approach A.1 Scenario, so that the Government may evaluate each Offeror’s response within the Scenario.

”Proposed alternative operational models will be evaluated for realism, effectivness, and cost efficiencies gained by the Government."

Response: The Government will amend sections L and M in final RFP as deemed appropriate to allow for the submission and evaluation of alternative approaches..

22. Question: Does "Contractor’s facilities" refer exclusively to locations that house administrative personnel or does this include other off-site facilities used for integration and testing (I&T)?

Response: Contractor's facilities does not exclusively refer to locations that house administrative personnel. Yes, this can include other off-site facilities used for integration and testing (I&T).

23. Question: DRFP M.4 (b) states that Subfactor A Technical is worth 650 points;

Subfactor B Management is worth 250 points; and Subfactor C Small Business

Utilization (SBU) is worth 100 points, for a total of 1,000 points. The current weighting deemphasizes the greatest area of concern expressed by civil servants regarding facility availability and knowledge / talent retention during programmatic funding deficits. A revision to the scoring would align performance requirements with increasing employment compensation conditions and decreasing Congressional funding in support of NASA’s mission, as well as those anticipated throughout the period of performance. The Management Approach warrants a more substantial weighting of points because of the necessity of managing an incumbent workforce, their successors, and existing technical processes balanced with the need to create cost efficiencies. We recommend the following restructured evaluation weights: A:

Technical Approach - 450; B: Management Approach - 400; C: Small Business

Utilization - 150. Total: 1000.

Response: The final RFP shall be updated to reflect revised M.4 (b) Subfactor A:

Technical is worth 500 points; Subfactor B: Business Management Approach is worth 400 points; and Subfactor C: Small Business Utilization (SBU) is worth 100 points, for a total of 1,000 points.

24. Question: With regard to OCI, are there any specific contracts that the Government has identified that have been determined to have OCI issues?

Response: The Government has not identified any specific contracts that have been determined to have OCI issues. It is the Offeror's responsibility to identify OCI issues.

25. Question: Are there any HW, SW, SaaS or PaaS solutions that you foresee addressing the Data Acquisition systems and management requirements detailed within the RFP?

Response: The scenario provides each offeror the opportunity to propose solutions as they see fit based on the offerors unique approach. As such, solutions to address data acquisition systems and management requirements can neither be identified nor excluded for the purposes of this exercise. The offeror shall determine what solutions are necessary to complete the scenarios based on its understanding and approach to meeting the scenario. Please refer to Tasks A & B to help develop rationale.

26. Question: The Mentor-Protégé "team" and how the SBA explicitly allows us to compete as the small with past performance of the large – how does NASA plan utilize this synergy?

Response: This question is not completely clear. If an offeror plans to propose as a

Joint Venture (JV), the JV itself and both JV team members' past performance will be considered in the past performance evaluation.

27. Question: The scenario asks for a detailed cost control and risk management plan but does not provide cost baselines or risk probabilities. What cost estimates or financial assumptions should Offerors use as a baseline for monitoring and controlling costs during the I&T campaign? What initial risk probability data or specific known risks should Offerors consider for each project? Will the Government please clarify how the cost baselines and testing tolerances outlined in GSFC-STD-7000B will factor into the cost control and risk management plans for the scenario?

Response: Testing per GEVS requirements drives the cost baseline and basis for cost control. The scenario provides each offeror the opportunity to propose cost baselines or risk probabilities based on the offeror's unique approach. Risk probabilities and cost control methodology can neither be identified nor excluded for the purposes of this exercise. The offeror shall identify and explain their assumptions and approaches within the proposal. Refer to Tasks A & B to help develop rationale.

28. Question: Project Z requires testing for four scientific instruments over 24 months, but the timeline overlaps with the mission-critical schedules for X and Y. Please clarify the following: How long will each phase of the Structural Dynamics, EMI/EMC, and Thermal Vacuum tests take for both X, Y, and Z instruments?

What specific testing conflicts might arise between X/Y and Z due to shared resources, and how are these conflicts prioritized? Will the standard test durations outlined in GSFC-STD-7000B be applied to Project Z’s instruments, or should

Offerors develop customized timelines?

Response: The scenario provides each offeror the opportunity to propose resolutions/impacts to timeline overlaps based on the offeror's unique approach. As such the specific duration of testing, nature of conflicts and prioritization of conflicts that may arise can neither be identified nor excluded for the purposes of this exercise.

The offeror shall determine what approach to timeline overlaps are necessary to complete the scenario based on its understanding to meeting the scenario requirements.

Please Refer to Tasks A & B to help develop rationale. Yes, GSFC-STD-7000B is applicable to Project Z's instruments and offerors shall develop the appropriate timeline.

29. Question: The Government requires the following: “The Offeror shall include a list of those to whom the questionnaires were sent, including name of individual, phone number, organization, and contract number.”

Will the Government please consider not counting this requirement against the page limit for the Past Performance Volume?

Response: In accordance with L.26 (b)(1) the list of those sent past performance questionnaires are excluded from the page limitation for the Past Performance Volume.

30. Question: The RFP requests that the Offeror include: “Statement of contract past safety performance and a record of your company’s OSHA recordable injuries and illnesses for the past 3 years.”

Will the Government please consider excluding this requirement from the page limitation for the Past Performance Volume?

Response: The Government will not exclude this requirement from the page limitation for the Past Performance Volume.

31. Question: Comment(s): That latest size standard for NAICS 541330 with no exceptions, as modified by the Office of Management and Budget, effective January 1, 2022 is

$25.5M. (REF: https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards).

Will this be reflected to the latest size standard in the final RFP to ensure Small

Businesses are represented correctly?

Response: Yes, this was an error and will be updated in final RFP release.

32. Question: Would NASA consider hosting an additional “Industry Day” event specifically for Small Businesses? Larger OEM / System Integrator tend to operate insularly, creating challenges for the SBA community to be properly market their capabilities to the federal government.

Response: NASA does not intend to host an additional “Industry Day” event at this time